Biggest Disappointments With Game Engine?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, for what it's worth, here are my thoughts:

point#1: I feel that, at the beginning of the game, you should ONLY be able to choose from those Civilizations which existed in the Ancient age (like Romans, Greeks, Persian's-etc) As you move into each new era, you should get a chance to rename both your Civ, and your Civ's leader-if you want! (Think "History of the World" by Avalon Hill). In addition, if you destroy a Civ, and it later is respawned, it should only come from Civs which are applicable to the era you are currently in. Lastly, I wish, wish, WISH they would bring back Civil Wars (though with the different mechanics which have been discussed in so many different threads)-that way, when cities break away to form a new Civ-the civ can take a name appropriate to the era (think American War of Independance).
I would have to disagree with Trip, though, about NO civ being wiped out. The Mayans, Incas and Aztecs were, in their pure-blood form, wiped out to a man. Most South Americans are now of at least SOME mixed blood! Also, a number of indigenous civilizations now exist only as marginalised groups within other Civilizations.

Point#2 Agree wholeheartedly with you on this one, Trip. The best, and easiest solutions I can think of for this one would be to have Random natural and socialogical events which can alter the landscape, or your nation (such as eruptions, floods and tidal waves; or revolutions, dark ages or Renaissances)-thus making the games outcome even LESS predictable. It would also be nice if a city improvement could actually CAUSE a resource to appear in that cities radius, if bonus and luxury resources could appear and disappear like the strategic type, and if disappearance was more linked to the size of a civ (#of cities), how many civs they trade that resource to, and the number of that resource the civ controls Also, tweaking of the Global Warming model(and having nuclear war cause Nuclear WINTER, not summer ), and making pollution a little less easy to counteract, would also be good!

Point#3: Must agree again, Trip. My biggest issue is that, even with the advent of Battlefield medicine, non-infantry units should ONLY be able to heal in a fort or a friendly city. Secondly, I feel that all units should have some kind of range-i.e: the number of square,s outside of friendly borders, that a unit can travel before they start suffering damage, on a turn-by turn basis. Nations that you have ROP's, MPP's or alliances with would count as friendly, and forts would also count as friendly territory. This would make forts more valuable to build, as they would become "Supply lines" for your invading force! I also wish they would bring back SMAC alliances, where you could base your forces in an allies cities!

On a final note, another change I'd like to see is the presence of CtP style "trade routes" , with a concommitant ability for enemies to break or pillage them (though NOT automatically!!)

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Jaybe]

... if bonus and luxury resources could appear and disappear like the strategic type ...

Luxuries can be made to disappear through the Editor. Bonus resources can be changed to Strategic resources and also do disappearing acts.

I have started to experiment with such changes to emulate 'rise and fall of civilization' dynamics. I have no solid conclusions as of yet, but you DO have to put up with those bonus resources being listed as strat. resources in the city and diplomatic windows.

My next test game will have to be a debug-enabled scenario.

--
OT: Being used to large maps, playing a std. map (with my current test game) sure gives a different feel. You smaller-map players don't know what you're missing ... (and visa versa)!

[Verto]

Would be nice to see random disasters happening, as mentioned before,although I might cry if my civilization was wiped out by the bubonic plague or an earthquake.

[Spec]

Turn time on huge map.

[RGBVideo]

If you destroy a civilization, it has no effect on the game. 'Their' citizens become 'your' citizens instantly, and don't affect anything for the rest of the game. In reality, every 'civilization' has been conquered by another, usually to rise again. Civs being conquered never to emerge independent or important again is the rare exception, and no where near being the rule.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

A qualifier to my above statement regarding random events:

In the editor, you should be able to change the frequency and magnitude of random events (in general). This would, however, effect both good and bad events!!
Second, you should be able to have improvements and/or Wonders which reduce, or even eliminate, the chance of a bad random event happening. Conversely, certain improvements/wonders should increase the chance of a Good event occuring! The chance of some random events happening should also be connected, in some way, to your actions in the game. The importance of these qualifiers is that random events aren't 100% "Random" but can be altered to your benefit!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[HAND]

Originally posted by Trip
The big problem in this area is lack of diplomacy The diplomatic engine is very limited, and a little work in that area could do wonders.

Yea i remember in AC, having the option to "call off your vendetta against my friend"...I thought this would be in Civ3?
I also think you should be able to sell/give weaponary aswell without handing over the tech itself (as in Civ2)..

A number of other choices should be available aswell.

[Pingu:]

In terms of combat, I was expecting something a bit more innovative, after Call to power which had such a good model of combat.... Perhaps units with the close combat strengths aswell as ranged attack strengths. The maximum size of the army is dependent on your communications technology at the time (radio suddenly becomes the biggest military advance ever!). Great leaders do something like enhance every unit in the army?? or allow a bigger army by 50%??

Nukes. When you nuke, or get nuked, there needs to be a new Nuclear exchange turn, where the game goes ballistic missile only, and the whole world gets wiped out in one turn! A surprise attack has a bit of an advantage, but it works in Civ much more than it would in reality.

Apart from that (and not being able to stack with allied Civs, but that's minor) Civ 3 is great.


Pingu:

[HAND]

There also should be an option to let weapon inspections take place...rather than a friendly civ get paranoid and have to try and plant spies etc which will inevitably cause friction...

[badams52]

That worked really well with Iraq.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Pingu:
Nukes. When you nuke, or get nuked, there needs to be a new Nuclear exchange turn, where the game goes ballistic missile only, and the whole world gets wiped out in one turn! A surprise attack has a bit of an advantage, but it works in Civ much more than it would in reality.

As nukes are never destroyed in a nuclear exchange in Civ3, I've never had a problem with a counterstrike on the next turn. The world gets pretty much wiped out within one full turn.

[Mad Bomber]

Warp:

The problem is that nukes ARE destroyed when you capture a city, So you could investigate enemy cities to find out where all the ICBM are. Then all you have to do is to nuke those cities and capture them in the same turn to prevent a counter-strike.